FUJIFILM XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens - Any Good?

Hi All;

I’m looking at the 100-400 XF lens for my XT-4. I already own the 50-140 and may not use the 100-400 a ton, but there is a good instant rebate on it now.

I read on multiple forums and watched a few You Tube videos that indicated that it isn’t very sharp at the long end. What have you heard? How does it compare to my 50-140 XF Zoom?

Thanks!

-Brad

Sharpness is subjective. And overrated.

What is your end-goal for sharing and displaying your photos?

I would definitely say, the 100-400 is plenty sharp for most cases.

I have a friend who prints A3 size, and 100% crops from his full frame camera and 70-200 still look amazing.

It's a lovely lens

400mm

With 1.4x TC 560mm

243mm

With 1.4x TC 560mm

Morris

Brad Herman wrote:

Hi All;

I’m looking at the 100-400 XF lens for my XT-4. I already own the 50-140 and may not use the 100-400 a ton, but there is a good instant rebate on it now.

I read on multiple forums and watched a few You Tube videos that indicated that it isn’t very sharp at the long end. What have you heard? How does it compare to my 50-140 XF Zoom?

Thanks!

-Brad

I struggled with this lens for a long time and eventually sold it. When you are very close the detail and sharpness can be excellent. At a moderate distance it was not so much. After 3 years and several thousand images later, I bought a Nikon 500 PF and a Z7II. Razor sharp and super fun to shoot with. I still love Fuji. The telephoto lenses definitely need some help.

Brad Herman wrote:

Hi All;

I’m looking at the 100-400 XF lens for my XT-4. I already own the 50-140 and may not use the 100-400 a ton, but there is a good instant rebate on it now.

I read on multiple forums and watched a few You Tube videos that indicated that it isn’t very sharp at the long end. What have you heard? How does it compare to my 50-140 XF Zoom?

Thanks!

-Brad

I might be able to offer a view with this previous post, although I am unable to compare it with the 50-140 as I have never owned/used that lens, but it has a great reputation.

Re: Looking for Assistance with XF 100-400 Lens: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

The link offers my experience with the lens soon after I bought it and includes a shot at 400mm. Note, I use the 100-400 handheld.

Concerning sharpness, in my view it is possible that the human rather than the technical side of performance is a possible issue. I come at using telephoto lenses from the point of view of having been a marksman in rifle shooting. To be a marksman, and I was formally trained and spent years practicing, four attributes of high performance are necessary: settings; technique (standing, holding, breathing and triggering (or rolling a shutter button)); training; and practicing. I believe these four attributes are also necessary to perfect telephoto lens use.

Apologise if this sounds like I am preaching to an experienced user, but I often wonder why many people think they can buy a telephoto and obtain sharp results straight out of the box. That does not happen in rifle shooting and in my view neither in telephoto use. Once settings, techniques, training and practicing have been concluded and if the results are still unsharp then I would agree, look to the calibration of the lens.

Hope that helps.

On my website I have a review of the 100-400mm. About half way through there is a photograph of a common buzzard.

As I took the shot (at 400mm), the bird closed its nictitating membrane (third eyelid). The detail is astonishing. At 400% crop, we can easily see the tiny blood-filled capillaries and leading edge of the membrane which have been rendered with incredible detail.

Consistent success with sharpness using any or heavy telephoto big telephoto requires good support or absolutely faultless hand-holding technique and practice. I have a lot of people on workshops / photo safaris etc who complain about soft photographs at the longer end of telephoto lenses. Yes, some lenses are crap of course, but with many what I do find is the problem is as a result of their technique, particularly hand holding.

The Fujifilm 100-400mm is no different. It needs a bit of T&C in technique. But crucially, the underlying lens quality is present so success is certainly achievable.

Fujifilm 100-400mm review .

I've shot a fair amount on it, with Nikon, and with Nikon lenses adapted for Fuji.

The lenses render totally differently. Fuji seems to have a flatter, cuter image. Nikon is really contrasty and some of the birds look more scary with sharper edges. I could see this looking like the Nikon is sharper. But when I adapted the lens to Fuji I got the same look on the Fuji sensor.

The average pic seems nicer in the Nikon, but my favorites are often Fuji. Dustin Abbott mentioned in his review of the 70-300 too that even though it wasn't as sharp as the Sony the pictures were nicer.

Another thing I've been noticing more is Fuji seems to dial up the noise a lot on auto iso. Fuji will often pick 1600-3200 and Nikon will pick under 1000 for my neighborhood birding spot. I know there is a difference with the sensor size but it seems like part of that is Fuji's metering. Combined with Fuji iso noise not looking as good on Lightroom, I can see how people would say the lens isn't as sharp even when not looking at test charts.

Personally the issue I struggle with the most in a Fuji body is low light focusing, not the 100-400. It will just endlessly hunt. Even the cheap Nikon Z50 will cycle through the focus range but will pick something to focus on. This might be fixed with the XH2. With BIF on the Nikons I can usually make out a blob to focus on but with Fuji sometimes it's just a big blur and it never focuses on anything. Prefocusing on something at infinity helps. It was actually easier to deal with this with the 500 of because it was not focus by wire so I could move the focus ring to get out of the blurry mess. But since my Z9 came in I haven't really taken the XT4 for birding. Still undecided on if I am getting an XH2.

jhorse wrote:

Brad Herman wrote:

Hi All;

I’m looking at the 100-400 XF lens for my XT-4. I already own the 50-140 and may not use the 100-400 a ton, but there is a good instant rebate on it now.

I read on multiple forums and watched a few You Tube videos that indicated that it isn’t very sharp at the long end. What have you heard? How does it compare to my 50-140 XF Zoom?

Thanks!

-Brad

I might be able to offer a view with this previous post, although I am unable to compare it with the 50-140 as I have never owned/used that lens, but it has a great reputation.

Re: Looking for Assistance with XF 100-400 Lens: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

The link offers my experience with the lens soon after I bought it and includes a shot at 400mm. Note, I use the 100-400 handheld.

Concerning sharpness, in my view it is possible that the human rather than the technical side of performance is a possible issue. I come at using telephoto lenses from the point of view of having been a marksman in rifle shooting. To be a marksman, and I was formally trained and spent years practicing, four attributes of high performance are necessary: settings; technique (standing, holding, breathing and triggering (or rolling a shutter button)); training; and practicing. I believe these four attributes are also necessary to perfect telephoto lens use.

Apologise if this sounds like I am preaching to an experienced user, but I often wonder why many people think they can buy a telephoto and obtain sharp results straight out of the box. That does not happen in rifle shooting and in my view neither in telephoto use. Once settings, techniques, training and practicing have been concluded and if the results are still unsharp then I would agree, look to the calibration of the lens.

Hope that helps.

Yes telephoto lens require practice.

There is also the problem of air especially when you shoot at long distance .

When the lens is not tack sharp , when you add the slightest motion blur, some air turbulence you finish to have a soft picture.

third son wrote:

I struggled with this lens for a long time and eventually sold it. When you are very close the detail and sharpness can be excellent. At a moderate distance it was not so much. After 3 years and several thousand images later, I bought a Nikon 500 PF and a Z7II. Razor sharp and super fun to shoot with. I still love Fuji. The telephoto lenses definitely need some help.

Lovely image, no sharpness complaints from me.

Ditto

This is an outstanding image. Of course, an expensive prime ought to be a tad better, but for casual viewing the ducklings image is not a million miles behind in my opinion.

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

On my website I have a review of the 100-400mm. About half way through there is a photograph of a common buzzard.

As I took the shot (at 400mm), the bird closed its nictitating membrane (third eyelid). The detail is astonishing. At 400% crop, we can easily see the tiny blood-filled capillaries and leading edge of the membrane which have been rendered with incredible detail.

Consistent success with sharpness using any or heavy telephoto big telephoto requires good support or absolutely faultless hand-holding technique and practice. I have a lot of people on workshops / photo safaris etc who complain about soft photographs at the longer end of telephoto lenses. Yes, some lenses are crap of course, but with many what I do find is the problem is as a result of their technique, particularly hand holding.

The Fujifilm 100-400mm is no different. It needs a bit of T&C in technique. But crucially, the underlying lens quality is present so success is certainly achievable.

Fujifilm 100-400mm review .

Very impressive eye lid shot and sharpness. I agree, aside from settings, hand holding technique, including standing, holding, breathing and rolling the shutter button, is the key to sharpness.

Powerdoc wrote:

Yes telephoto lens require practice.

There is also the problem of air especially when you shoot at long distance .

When the lens is not tack sharp , when you add the slightest motion blur, some air turbulence you finish to have a soft picture.

Yes, very good point about air over distance, especially in certain climatic conditions. I don't have too much of a problem in this regard in the UK, but I can image on an African safari (I was last in Kenya a few years ago with Olympus kit) I can imagine the impact of heat shimmering influencing the look of an image if the subject is some distance away.

Given Alan's safari images, he may have a better view.

Yes.

In general I wouldn't complain about sharpness of this lens @400mm, even when paired with 1.4xTC

Here, are few samples from me:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66162317

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66180045

On the other hand, you should make sure if 400mm is enough for you. If you need more reach I would suggest cheaper Sigma 150-600 + Fringer.

XF100-400 is very good lens (decent IQ and excellent OIS), but a bit too expensive considering other available options. If you found a bargain and 400mm is enough then you shouldn't be disappointed.

Cheers,

Artur

jhorse wrote:

third son wrote:

I struggled with this lens for a long time and eventually sold it. When you are very close the detail and sharpness can be excellent. At a moderate distance it was not so much. After 3 years and several thousand images later, I bought a Nikon 500 PF and a Z7II. Razor sharp and super fun to shoot with. I still love Fuji. The telephoto lenses definitely need some help.

Lovely image, no sharpness complaints from me.

Ditto

This is an outstanding image. Of course, an expensive prime ought to be a tad better, but for casual viewing the ducklings image is not a million miles behind in my opinion.

I was fairly close to the goslings and yellowthroat but a good 50 feet from the woodpecker.  Folks often mention handholding technique when discussing long lenses.  I don't have any problems shooting the 500PF or 100-400mm Z lenses for long periods of time and getting excellent fur and feather details.  I don't see a consistent volume of work demonstrating such detail with the 100-400mm.  While I consider many of the images I have taken with the Fuji lens excellent and suitable for printing, the consistency in high detail is what I was striving for.  I still have a lot to get better at but feel I have definitely upped my game lately.

Both of these subjects were at least 30-50 feet away

Stuart VC wrote:

I can't answer about the lens as i dont own it but there are some fantastic shots being posted in here, even as a non wildlife photographer im enjoying these.

I can't answer about this lens even if I own one, but some people said that the lens is sharp for close subject at 400 mm but softer at infinite. I will check for my self, perhaps it's just a problem of air turbulence

XT4 with 100-400-1,4 TC

Just following up with some photos.

The 100-400 is definitely sharp but it's not as biting as other lenses. But I don't know if sharpness is everything.

Typical 100-400 for me

Nikon lenses have more contrast and pop

Adapting the Nikon lens to a fuji give it a similar Nikon look so I think it's the lens

But a lot of my overall favorites came from the 100-400 even if the sharpness isn't so in your face. I almost think the sharpness makes the birds look meaner or angrier.

Stuart VC wrote:

I think it’s safe to say the 100-400 is extremely capable. Thumbs up for all the shots.

Ha ha, Ai was going to say, I love how everyone is chiming in with their photos showing how sharp and great the lens is.